Oral Defamation Case Filed by Annabel Rama Against Wilma Galvante Dismissed

Moneyger and monster mom Anabelle Rama is cooped up in her secret room “playing” with her Wilma Galvente voodoo doll because the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor Office dismissed the Grave Oral Defamation or Grave Slander filed by Anabelle Rama against Wilma Galvante, Vice President for Entertainment at GMA Network.

The Prosecutor’s Office cited “lack of probable cause” in dismissing the complaint.

The case stemmed from Rama’s allegations that Galvante maligned her and undermined her role as manager to JC during an incident on 16 Feb 2009 inside Galvante’s office at GMA 7.

HAHAHA. Strike two for the “esteemed” (heaping dose of sarcasm here) Gutierrez clan. Richard Gutierrez lost his P25 M libel suit against PEP, which the family is not above using whenever they have a statement they want to make public. And now Anabelle’s grave slander suit against Wilma Galvante.

The third strike would either come from: Wilma Galvante winning her P7 M damage suit against Anabelle or Richard Gutierrez being found liable for causing the car accident in Cavite that killed his personal assistant, Nomar Pardo.

The following statements from Galvante were neither derogatory nor insulting, according to the QC Prosecutor’s Office:

"Tingnan mo? Tingnan mo kung ano ang ginagawa ng manager mo?"

"Hindi kayo puwedeng tumanggi sa show at kung tumanggi kayo, puwede kayo mademanda."

"They were just tolerating Annabelle, because when she didn’t like a project, she would pull out her talents pag malapit na ang show. Pero sobra na."

"Happy ka ba sa manager mo? Ilan taon pa ba ang kontrata mo sa kanya?

"May kopya ka ba ng contract mo with Annabelle? Puwede ko bang makita?"

"If there is anything I can help you with, just tell me."

Asst. City Prosecutor Torralba ruled, "Contrary to the theory of the complainant [Annabelle] that said statements are defamatory, insulting, malicious, and tend to prejudice complainant in her reputation, office or trade, business or means of livelihood, the undersigned finds nothing derogatory nor insulting to the complainant but rather finds the said statements to be more of a reminder to JC that they could be held liable in case they fail to comply with their contract with the network than a malicious or defamatory statement.